Ongoing AMOC and related sea-level and temperature changes after achieving the Paris targets


While the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is expected to weaken under increasing GHGs, it is unclear how it would respond to stabilization of global warming of 1.5 or 2.0 °C, the Paris Agreement temperature targets, or 3.0 °C, the expected warming by 2100 under current emission reduction policies. On the basis of stabilized warming simulations with two Earth System Models, we find that, after temperature stabilization, the AMOC declines for 5–10 years followed by a 150-year recovery to a level that is approximately independent of the considered stabilization scenario. The AMOC recovery has important implications for North Atlantic steric sea-level rise, which by 2600 is simulated to be 25–31% less than the global mean, and for North Atlantic surface temperatures, which continue to increase despite global mean surface temperature stabilization. These results show that substantial ongoing climate trends are likely to occur after global mean temperature has stabilized.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: GSAT and AMOC in stabilized warming simulations.
Fig. 2: Global and North Atlantic sea level.
Fig. 3: Ongoing changes in North Atlantic surface temperature after emissions cessation.
Fig. 4: Upper ocean salinity and density.
Fig. 5: GSAT and AMOC in ZECMIP simulations.

Data availability

Python scripts to create the figures are available at The CanESM2 transient warming simulations are freely available at All ZECMIP simulations that were branched off at the point that the diagnosed emissions reached 1,000 PgC are freely available on the portal of the Earth System Grid Federation. Data from the other simulations are available upon request.


  1. 1.

    Vellinga, M. & Wood, R. A. Impacts of thermohaline circulation shutdown in the twenty-first century. Clim. Change 91, 43–63 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Jackson, L. C. et al. Global and European climate impacts of a slowdown of the AMOC in a high resolution GCM. Clim. Dynam. 45, 3299–3316 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Yin, J., Griffies, S. M. & Stouffer, R. J. Spatial variability of sea level rise in twenty-first century projections. J. Clim. 23, 4585–4607 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gregory, J. M. et al. The Flux-Anomaly-Forced Model Intercomparison Project (FAFMIP) contribution to CMIP6: investigation of sea-level and ocean climate change in response to CO2 forcing. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3993–4017 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Saenko, O. A., Yang, D. & Myers, P. G. Response of the North Atlantic dynamic sea level and circulation to Greenland meltwater and climate change in an eddy-permitting ocean model. Clim. Dynam. 49, 2895–2910 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  7. 7.

    Weaver, A. J. et al. Stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: a model intercomparison. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L20709 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cheng, W., Chiang, J. C. H. & Zhang, D. Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) in CMIP5 models: RCP and historical simulations. J. Clim. 26, 7187–7197 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  10. 10.

    Maher, N. et al. The Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble: enabling the exploration of climate system variability. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 2050–2069 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mitchell, D. et al. Realizing the impacts of a 1.5 °C warmer world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 735–737 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    James, R., Washington, R., Schleussner, C. F., Rogelj, J. & Conway, D. Characterizing half-a-degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e457 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sigmond, M., Fyfe, J. C. & Swart, N. C. Ice-free Arctic projections under the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 404–408 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sanderson, B. M. et al. Community climate simulations to assess avoided impacts in 1.5 and 2 °C futures. Earth Syst. Dynam. 8, 827–847 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jahn, A. Reduced probability of ice-free summers for 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 409–413 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Graff, L. S. et al. Arctic amplification under global warming of 1.5 and 2 °C in NorESM1-Happi. Earth Syst. Dynam. 10, 569–598 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Perspective: Paris agreement climate proposals need boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 534, 631–639 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Swart, N. C. et al. The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 4823–4873 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jones, C. D. et al. The Zero emissions commitment model intercomparison project (ZECMIP) contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero carbon emissions. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 4375–4385 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Zickfeld, K., Marshall, S. J. & Merryfield, W. J. Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions. Nat. Geosci. 4, 83–87 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Drijfhout, S., van Oldenborgh, G. J. & Cimatoribus, A. Is a decline of AMOC causing the warming hole above the North Atlantic in observed and modeled warming patterns? J. Clim. 25, 8373–8379 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Menary, M. B. & Wood, R. A. An anatomy of the projected North Atlantic warming hole in CMIP5 models. Clim. Dynam. 50, 3063–3080 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gregory, J. M. et al. A model intercomparison of changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L12703 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    De Boer, A. M., Gnanadesikan, A., Edwards, N. R. & Watson, A. J. Meridional density gradients do not control the Atlantic overturning circulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 40, 368–380 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    McCarthy, G. D. et al. Measuring the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 26° N. Prog. Oceanogr. 130, 91–111 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rahmstorf, S. On the freshwater forcing and transport of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Clim. Dynam. 12, 799–811 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Gent, P. R. A commentary on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation stability in climate models. Ocean Model. 122, 57–66 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Liu, W., Xie, S. P., Liu, Z. & Zhu, J. Overlooked possibility of a collapsed Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in warming climate. Sci. Adv. 3, 1–8 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mecking, J. V., Drijfhout, S. S., Jackson, L. C. & Andrews, M. B. The effect of model bias on Atlantic freshwater transport and implications for AMOC bi-stability. Tellus A 69, 1–15 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mecking, J. V., Drijfhout, S. S., Jackson, L. C. & Graham, T. Stable AMOC off state in an eddy-permitting coupled climate model. Clim. Dynam. 47, 2455–2470 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jackson, L. C. & Wood, R. A. Hysteresis and resilience of the AMOC in an eddy-permitting GCM. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 8547–8556 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, 3–8 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Change 109, 213–241 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Arora, V. K. & Scinocca, J. F. Constraining the strength of the terrestrial CO2 fertilization effect in the Canadian Earth System Model version 4.2 (CanESM4.2). Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2357–2376 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Duo Yang for performing the CanESM5 simulations, Yanjun Jiao for technical assistance, and Bill Merryfield and Vivek Arora for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Author information




M.S., J.F and N.S. conceived the project. M.S. designed the CanESM2 experiments, performed most of the analysis and wrote the manuscript. J.F. and N.S. helped with the analysis and the writing of the manuscript. O.S. proposed and performed the sea-level analysis, helped develop the theoretical framework of the AMOC recovery and helped with writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Sigmond.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Andreas Schmittner and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sigmond, M., Fyfe, J.C., Saenko, O.A. et al. Ongoing AMOC and related sea-level and temperature changes after achieving the Paris targets. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 672–677 (2020).

Download citation